About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
will proceed on that basis. >> that this hurt britains relationship with america. >> one thing george w. bush used to say about tony blare is once tony blare gave his word we are followed through with it. quite clearly, president obama and david cameron have had a number of talks and from a white house perspective, cameron will be proven to be not able to deliver. >> the specials relationship was forged in the second word war. there have been ups and downs. some got on bet than others, but it has endured through the decades. although it's a friendship the british, the junior partners always probably cared about more than the americans. >> the british parliament has who you mill 80ed david cameron, but there are ministers in his government will worry that it has somehow diminished britain's place in the world and helped make it a less important international player. >> i spoke to one of the conservative rebels, an m.p. who voted against british military involvement in syria. >> britain is still an economic power, but our state is relative to other countries around the world sadly diminishing a
drunk. in my view, many people in this country, and i fear also your own, tony blare, helped george bush to drive drunk and if it was up to me, i was was in both iraq wars a disastrous invasion of iraq. the problem with this is what is your end point. outrage at the atrocious behavior of the asaad rah jet stream. outrage is not a strategy. >> and there you go. one reason why members of parliament today seeing no end in site to this. now some poll numbers to keep in mind. 2-1 against military action in syria. and here at home the most recent poll taken the week of the chemical attack that was last week, shows that only 25% of americans would support military strikes. >> that's a pretty significant number. on the subject of popular support, there is reason for president obama to tread cautiously here as well. joining us from seattle, is the washington state congressman, he is one of 21 democratic representatives who have asked mr. obama to get congressional approval if he does decide to go forward. congressman, i want to ask you about that motion of popular support, and whether it is there
national security official under george w. bush and barack obama. what are the opsuns given the military has made it alert the chemical weapons are not acceptable. >> well, there are a brood range of messages. if you just want to make it clears after you are finished that it is not a good idea to do it again. so the mission objective determines all of this. but you are not going to attack the chemical weapons themselves because that is too dangerous. so that means in my view, you have a range of military targets that you could strike. air bases, ground basis. air forces. aircraft on the ground and ground force units. >> do you strike women this missiles, bombers, something more -- even closer to the targets? >> i think you want to do them in a way that minimizes the risk to your forces, so i think b2 bombers which are generally well out of reach of air defenses and cruise missiles as well. >> the military says it is a target-rich environment, i assume? >> i think there are a range of targets you could go after, but a key goal of this operation too will be not to cause civilian casualties
, former ambassador to syria, and dean of the george bush school at texas a&m university. ambassador crocker, good to talk to you. from the speech today from the secretary of state, have we reached a point where the politics have moved ahead of the actual investigation? >> i think the push for military action is clearly growing, and in terms of the investigation, as secretary kerry noted, what the inspectors may be able to determine is whether chemical weapons were used. the secretary said they will not take a position on who used them. so i think we can all kind of o here. the rebels don't have this type of equipment, and the regime does. the investigation will tell us what we know. chemical agents were used. they won't tell us who used them. >> the secretary also mentioned that the united states has evidence of this attack, evidence that may not be in the hands or won't get to the hands of the investigators. before any action is taken, does the case need to be made? the evidencary case need to be a made in terms of putting all cards on the table. >> i think it needs to be made. it
george bush and say, well, bring it on. and this is a real problem for the u.s. so, now, the u.s. is saying, well, look, this is partly designed to restore credibility and that's not a very good reason to launch, you know, an armed attack. so -- >> let me -- let me get a final brief question in: how will the rest of the region be impacted if the u.s. strike goes ahead? >> the rest of the region will certainly see an enhancement of the poliarization that's alread there, e ideal logical, dependig upon the strike where it hits and what targets, there will probably be greater flows of refugees which will exacerbate the situation in lebanon and jordan. it may or may not strengthen the opposition and it may strengthen the secularist groups. there will be many different reactions and the likelihood is that most people around the region original, not everybody, but most people, will raise the question again of: why does the united states use military action unilaterally to enforce international norms but doesn't do anything about international norms, say, that apply to the israeli se
george h.w bush. in an interview aspen said what we're doing is sending a message against the people who are responsible for planning this operation. if anybody asks the same people to do it again they will remember this message. and experts say this isn't about sending the message to syria at all but to another american enemy next door. >> it's really about the president's credibility when dealing with other countries specifically iran. he has told iran that up a options are on the table including military options to prevent them from gaining nuclear weapon. if he let's it go in syria his deterrent threat in iran is weakened. >> british lawmakers have dealt a major blow to the boom administration by voting against military intervention in syria. simon mcgregor wood has that from london. >> order! >> reporter: bearing bad news. >> the ayes to the right, 272, the nos to the left, 285. >> reporter: his motion asking for support for military action in syria defeated by 13 votes. not a big number but it was a very significant political loss. as the dust settled there was admission of defeat
to assassinate george hw bush. in an interview with the washington post aspen said. request experts say this isn't about sending a message to syria at all. but to another american enemy right next door. specifically iran. he has told iran that all options are on the table. to prevent them from gaining a nuclear weapon. if he lets it go, the threat in iran is weakened. >> john, and the question that experts kept raising with me today, over and over again, is why. why would asaad use chemical weapons now, especially when the president has repeated that this is a red line that cannot be crossed? >> in washington, d.c., tonight paul, thank you and as we mentioned the big news from europe tonight, british lawmakers said no to military intervention, and are backing the u.s. if the white house decides to strike. simon mcgregor has more from london. order. >> to the speaker of the british house of commons. bad news for david cameron and his coalition. >> the ayes to the right. the no's to the left, 285. >> his motion asking for support the the principle note reaction, defeated by 13 votes. not a big num
totally critical of the unilateral as special of the george w.bush saying if we have to, we'll go it alone. >>> with france and turkey as well. what would be the objective? >> this the also something that's very interesting. the administration has made a total the objective of any military strike against syria and the objective of actually ending this now long-running civil war in the country. question is whether or not they can actually thread that needle. they basically want to send a signal t to bashar al asaad firt of all you're punished for using chemical weapons in violation of international law and we will deter you from doing it in the future. you can keep on fighting but have to do it conventional. >> will the u.s. military strike change the calculus in this revolution/civil war at all? >> i don't think it will. i don't think the administration wants to do so. i think there are many voices within the administration saying if the opposition -- it may be fragmented but -- >> my apologies we lost stewart. a senior fellow at the the council and foreign relations. in israel many people
president george h w bush, defense secretary sounded a lot like president obama. in an interview with the post, aspen said what we are doing is sending a message against the people who were responsible for planning this operation. if anybody asks the same people to do it again, they will remember this message. and experts say this isn't about sending a message to syria at all. but to another american enemy right next door. >> it really is about the president's credibility when dealing with other countries. specifically iran. he has told iran that all options are on the table, including military options. to prevent them from gaining a nuclear weapon. if he lets it go in syria, the threat in iran is weakened. experts kept coming back with why now, when president obam ha has so clearly stated this is a red line. paul, thank you very much. it would seem after listening to those reports that if there was a plan, it has gone terribly wrong. what change was done before the sort of turn tide and began to talk about an attack. >> i think that spoke to their closest allies and i think perh
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)